Page 5434 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
heard nothing but tedious repetition of a pretty weak argument from those opposite, essentially that boils down to a personal attack on Mr Corbell. When they cannot sustain that, they fling a few abuses and hurl a few abusive comments across the chamber at the Greens party. That has been the substance of nearly two hours of Assembly debate.
For the record, and in order to respond to the question that was posed of me by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Corbell has acted appropriately in apologising to the Assembly and correcting the record. He of course maintains the full confidence of the Chief Minister and myself and, indeed, all of his colleagues in this place. Mr Corbell’s contribution to public life in this city is greater than the total contribution of the parliamentary Liberal Party in the past and, I imagine, in the future.
Mr Corbell is a man of great integrity who has made a significant contribution and who continues to make a significant contribution to this city. In fact, it is, I think, perhaps a great disappointment that in the context of the last nearly two hours all we have heard from the Canberra Liberals is tedious repetition of tired old arguments. We are nearly two hours into this debate. We have already heard from nearly every member of the Greens party on what their position is. We know the government will not be supporting this ridiculous censure motion. I think it is now time that the Assembly deals with the matter.
Amendment negatived.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: The question now is that Mr Coe’s motion be agreed to. I call on Mr Coe to close the debate.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (4.49): There has been tedious repetition on this issue, and the tedious repetition came in the form of questions to the minister. If there had been some tedious repetition in his search for knowledge, we would not be in the situation where an upstanding community group has been slurred. It is interesting that the Greens should each jump to their feet—except Ms Le Couteur, who is, indeed, the shadow for this portfolio—to not only defend Mr Corbell but, by and large, concentrate their attention on the Liberals. That just shows what this relationship is all about when it comes down to it. It is blind faith in the government. Well, if we had blind faith in the government, we would not have found this out, and the RSPCA would be without the $150,000.
That is something the minister still has not answered, and it is something the Greens have not asked either: are the RSPCA ever going to get their $150,000 they were promised last financial year? Nobody has actually asked the minister that, and I wonder why. The Greens have picked the wrong issue to blindly back the Labor Party on. This is meant to be an issue which their base subscribes to, but they have got the politics all wrong. They got the politics wrong and they have got the argument wrong in terms of backing a minister who has misled on three separate occasions.
I would not be at all surprised if the first time since 1 November that Mr Corbell realised that he took this question on notice is when I interjected across the chamber. He said, “No, no, I didn’t take it on notice.” Then he frantically read Hansard, went to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video